*Pages 1--4 from  Microsoft Word - 7948.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  822 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  re  Applications  of 
 EASTERN  AIRWAVES,  L.  L.  C. 
 For  a  Phase  II  Cellular  Unserved  Area 
 Authorization  in  the  Nevada  5  White  Pine  Rural 
 Service  Area,  Market  No.  547B 


 In  re  Applications  of 
 EASTERN  AIRWAVES,  L.  L.  C. 
 For  a  Phase  II  Cellular  Unserved  Area 
 Authorization  in  the  Nevada  4  Mineral  Rural 
 Service  Area,  Market  No.  546B 


 In  re  Applications  of 
 DESERT  MOBILE,  L.  L.  C. 
 For  a  Phase  II  Cellular  Unserved  Area 
 Authorization  in  the  Nevada  5  White  Pine  Rural 
 Service  Area,  Market  No.  547B 


 In  re  Applications  of 
 DESERT  MOBILE,  L.  L.  C. 
 For  a  Phase  II  Cellular  Unserved  Area 
 Authorization  in  the  Nevada  4  Mineral  Rural 
 Service  Area,  Market  No.  546B 


 In  re 
 AIRTOUCH  CELLULAR 
 For  Order  to  Show  Cause  for  Revocation  of  its 
 Authorization  for  the  Wireline  Cellular  Telephone 
 System  in  the  Nevada  5  White  Pine  Rural  Service 
 Area,  Market  No.  547B 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 


 File  Nos.  02601-  CL-  CP-  95 
 02618-  CL-  CP-  95 
 02619-  CL-  CP-  95 


 02616-  CL-  CP-  95 
 02617-  CL-  CP-  95 


 02596-  CL-  CP-  95 
 02597-  CL-  CP-  95 


 02604-  CL-  CP-  95 
 02605-  CL-  CP-  95 
 02606-  CL-  CP-  95 


 06048-  CL-  MP-  94 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 2 
 In  re  Application  of 
 MINERAL  RSA  LIMITED  PARTNERSHIP 
 For  a  Major  Modification  to  its  Authorization  for 
 the  Wireline  Cellular  Telephone  System  in  the 
 Nevada  4  Mineral  Rural  Service  Area,  Market  No. 
 546B 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 


 06477-  CL-  MP-  94 


 ORDER 
 Adopted:  March  30,  2001  Released:  April  3,  2001 


 By  Deputy  Chief,  Commercial  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau: 
 1.  The  Commercial  Wireless  Division  (Division)  has  before  it  two  Petitions  for 
 Reconsideration  relating  to  the  above-  captioned  applications.  First,  there  is  a  Petition  for  Reconsideration 
 filed  by  Eastern  Airwaves,  L.  L.  C.  (Eastern)  and  Desert  Mobile,  L.  L.  C.  (Desert)  on  July  14,  1999 
 regarding  an  Order  1  released  on  June  14,  1999.  Second,  there  is  a  Petition  for  Reconsideration  filed  by 
 Desert  on  March  27,  2000  regarding  two  Orders,  2  both  released  on  February  25,  2000.  Because  the  two 
 Petitions  raise  identical  issues,  3  we  will  consider  both  of  them  together. 


 2.  The  June  14,  1999  Order  took  the  following  actions: 
 x  Dismissed  unserved  area  applications  filed  by  Eastern  and  Desert  in  the  Nevada  4  and  5 
 RSAs  (File  Nos.  02601-  CL-  CP-  95,  02618-  CL-  CP-  95,  02619-  CL-  CP-  95,  02616-  CL-  CP-95, 
 02617-  CL-  CP-  95,  02596-  CL-  CP-  95,  and  02597-  CL-  CP-  95). 


 1  In  re  Application  of  Eastern  Airwaves,  L.  L.  C.,  Order,  DA  99-  1164  (1999)  (June  14,  1999  Order). 
 2  In  re  Application  of  Mineral  RSA  Limited  Partnership,  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd.  4342  (2000)  (February  25,  2000 
 Mineral  Order);  In  re  Application  of  Desert  Mobile,  L.  L.  C.,  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd.  4370  (2000)  (February  25,  2000 
 Desert  Order). 


 3  We  note  that  Desert  admits  as  much  in  its  March  27,  2000  Petition  and  specifically  cross-  references  the 
 arguments  in  its  July  14,  1999  Petition.  See  March  27,  2000  Petition  at  2. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 3 
 x  Dismissed  as  moot  Desert’s  Petition  To  Revoke  Improperly  Granted  Authorization,  filed 
 with  respect  to  the  Commission’s  grant  of  a  major  modification  application  submitted  by 
 AirTouch  Cellular  in  the  Nevada  5  RSA  (File  No.  06048-  CL-  MP-  94).  4 


 x  Granted  the  major  modification  application  of  Mineral  RSA  Limited  Partnership  5  in  the 
 Nevada  4  RSA  (File  No.  06477-  CL-  MP-  94). 


 x  Determined  that  it  was  permissible,  under  the  Commission  rules  then  in  effect,  for  an 
 RSA  licensee  to  file  a  Form  401  application  prior  to  the  end  of  the  licensee’s  five-  year 
 buildout  period  seeking  prior  Commission  approval  and  a  one-  year  construction  period 
 for  sites  that  could  be  constructed  on  a  permissive  basis  subject  to  a  Form  489 
 notification  filing.  6 


 The  February  25,  2000  Mineral  Order  dismissed  Desert’s  December  30,  1994  petition  to  deny  Mineral 
 RSA  Limited  Partnership’s  August  16,  1994  application  and  denied  Desert’s  motion  to  accept  the  late-filed 
 petition  to  deny.  The  February  25,  2000  Desert  Order  dismissed  Desert’s  applications  to  serve 
 unserved  area  in  the  Nevada  4  RSA  (File  Nos.  02604-  CL-  CP-  95,  02605-  CL-  CP-  95,  and  02606-  CL-  CP-95). 


 3.  After  reviewing  the  record,  we  find  that  the  Petition  for  Reconsideration  of  the  June  14, 
 1999  Order  filed  by  Eastern  and  Desert  (Petitioners)  raises  no  new  arguments  and  fails  to  demonstrate 
 that  their  arguments  had  not  received  full  and  fair  consideration.  We  reiterate  the  fact  that  Mineral’s 
 expansion  application  was  properly  accepted  and  granted  by  the  Commission.  7  Petitioners  claim  that 
 Mineral  filed  its  applications  for  the  purpose  of  “warehousing”  spectrum  in  violation  of  Commission 
 policy.  8  It  is  unnecessary  for  us  to  reach  the  merits  of  this  claim  because  Mineral’s  filing  was  clearly 
 permitted  by  Commission  rules,  as  set  forth  in  the  June  14,  1999  Order.  Accordingly,  for  the  reasons 
 specified  in  the  June  14,  1999  Order  and  the  reasons  set  forth  herein,  we  deny  the  July  14,  1999  Petition 
 for  Reconsideration. 


 4.  After  reviewing  the  record,  we  find  that  the  Petition  for  Reconsideration  of  the  February 
 25,  2000  orders  raises  no  new  arguments  and  fails  to  demonstrate  that  their  arguments  did  not  receive  full 
 and  fair  consideration.  Accordingly,  for  the  reasons  specified  in  the  February  25,  2000  orders,  we  deny 
 the  March  27,  2000  Petition  for  Reconsideration. 


 4  The  Commission  granted  the  major  modification  application  on  October  14,  1994.  See  Public  Notice,  Rpt.  No. 
 CL-  95-  47  (rel.  Oct.  14,  1994).  We  note  that,  according  to  the  Commission’s  records,  the  licensee  in  this  market  is 
 now  Cellco  Partnership. 


 5  We  note  that,  according  to  the  Commission’s  records,  the  licensee  in  this  market  is  now  Southwestco  Wireless 
 Limited  Partnership. 
 6  We  note  that  the  June  14,  1999  Order  pointed  out  that,  because  AirTouch  did  not  construct  the  authorized 
 facilities  in  Nevada  5,  Eastern,  Desert,  and  any  other  interested  parties  were  free  to  pursue  Phase  II  unserved  area 
 applications  in  that  RSA.  As  far  as  the  Commission’s  records  reflect,  neither  Eastern  nor  Desert  have  taken 
 advantage  of  this  opportunity. 


 7  See  In  the  Matter  of  Amendment  of  Part  22  of  the  Commission’s  Rules  to  Provide  for  Filing  and  Processing  of 
 Applications  for  Unserved  Areas  in  the  Cellular  Service  and  to  Modify  Other  Cellular  Rules,  Memorandum 
 Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  8  FCC  Rcd.  1363,  1363  n.  3  (1993). 


 8  See  July  14,  1999  Petition  for  Reconsideration  at  6-  7. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 4 
 5.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  authority  delegated  by  section  4(  i)  of  the 
 Communications  Act,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §  154(  i),  and  by  section  0.331  of  the  Commission’s  rules, 
 47  C.  F.  R.  §  0.  331,  that  the  Petition  filed  on  July  14,  1999,  by  Eastern  Airwaves,  L.  L.  C.  and  Desert 
 Mobile,  L.  L.  C.,  IS  DENIED. 


 6.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED,  pursuant  to  authority  delegated  by  section  4(  i)  of  the 
 Communications  Act,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.  §  154(  i),  and  by  section  0.331  of  the  Commission’s  rules, 
 47  C.  F.  R.  §  0.  331,  that  the  Petition  filed  on  March  27,  2000,  by  Desert  Mobile,  L.  L.  C.,  IS  DENIED. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Katherine  M.  Harris 
 Deputy  Chief,  Commercial  Wireless  Division 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau 
4